TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agoWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?message-squaremessage-square72fedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down11
arrow-up11arrow-down1message-squareWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square72fedilink
minus-squareBigLime@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoI’m fr curious if this can work. If it does, it seems beyond impossible to find a 25 year old college woman who would even want to marry
minus-squarejet@hackertalks.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoTwo 18 year old students about to start university get married. I think it can even be same sex, marriage is marriage. Remember Marriage isn’t for life! You and your partner could get married with the understanding this is just a college marriage.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoThat’s a whole abuse of the purpose of marriage, though
minus-squarejet@hackertalks.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-21 month agoA loop hole that is technically correct is still correct. What is the purpose of marriage?
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoTwo people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
minus-squareLedivin@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoYeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoIf it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
minus-squareShepherdPie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoThen what is your basis for it only being between two people? You’re defining it just like religion does because that’s where you got the idea even if you don’t realize it.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 month agoBecause that’s what marriage is and always has been, anything else is contrary to human nature
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 month agoOnly two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·edit-21 month agoIf it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman” Also, if it’s more than two, that’s not a marriage; that’s a group chat.
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 month agoYou still didn’t explain why.
I’m fr curious if this can work. If it does, it seems beyond impossible to find a 25 year old college woman who would even want to marry
Two 18 year old students about to start university get married. I think it can even be same sex, marriage is marriage.
Remember Marriage isn’t for life! You and your partner could get married with the understanding this is just a college marriage.
That’s a whole abuse of the purpose of marriage, though
A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.
What is the purpose of marriage?
Two people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
Yeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.
If it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
Then what is your basis for it only being between two people? You’re defining it just like religion does because that’s where you got the idea even if you don’t realize it.
Because that’s what marriage is and always has been, anything else is contrary to human nature
Only two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.
If it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
Also, if it’s more than two, that’s not a marriage; that’s a group chat.
You still didn’t explain why.